NLU Delhi's Independent Student Newspaper

Menu

Standoff at NLU Delhi

I wish I could say the entire episode was as exciting at the title (if calling it exciting is correct). But as the old adage goes, ‘if wishes were horse, beggars would ride them.’ Last year’s MCC tried to resign en masse in response to the Vice Chancellor’s wish to undermine the Committee’s decision. Things came to a head and that stare down went to the MCC. MCC-1, VC-0.

Come this year, however, and the MCC was of the view that a more strict and stringent policy was necessary to ensure that the next mooting season did not see the college perform in a manner that was considered abysmal by the Committee. The procedure arrived at was a segregated IMS, divided into three, each with its own problem; international law, commercial law and domestic law. As desired by the Vice Chancellor, the suggested policy went through many layers of checks, some of which were considered unnecessary and some which were outside the mandate of those checking it. (Mini’s email to the college refers to a vote by the EC, and a further check by teachers, none of which has voting and deciding on IMS policy in the college, which is the sole mandate of the MCC). The opposition believed that the tried and tested policy should continue and there was no reason to deviate from what had worked for the college before. Seeing the committee undermined to the extent where it could not perform its basic functions without interference, the convenors resigned and have stated their reasons in their email. 5 other members too resigned with them, leaving behind 2 members to continue on their crusade towards holding the Internal Moot Selection. (Dhruv Sharma, the 10th elected member had already set the wheels in motion through his resignation a while ago). The question though remains, who won this round of the ever continuing tussle between the MCC and the VC?

Jokes and my love for general anarchy apart, the question which exists at hand is that of procedural propriety. Though the VC can choose to reject policy, such arbitrary decisions by the administration are worrying. Placing layer after layer of qualification according to their whims gives rise to question that has plagued committees in general and the MCC in particular: are they really independent, or are they just part of the authority’s appeasement policy with no independent functioning of their own? The jury is still out on that one.